wxboy:My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent. I bet they could successfully sue him over that.

It does raise one question - how do they get around the requirement for a model release? every stock photo featuring a person basically needs a model release, so why are jackass paparazzi exempted from that when they're selling the photos for ostensibly public use (for media outlets)? Is it some absurd free speech exemption?

Lenny_da_Hog:Theaetetus: That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.

No it doesn't, not in the least. She states that she knows she's visible through the windows of her building...

but that she never expected to be filmed there.Therefore, she has no expectation of seclusion. She's saying that it's creepy, not that she had an expectation of seclusion but that she had an expectation that she would not be filmed in her home, as the New York court said was reasonable.

I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.

Lenny_da_Hog:Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.

... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their invasion of privacy statute.

I was looking directly at p. 3, where it says the plaintiff has to to allege the use of their portrait or likeness for advertising or trade without written permission. You know, right there where the doc says no common-law right to privacy exists in NY law.

You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?

Lenny_da_Hog:Theaetetus: Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.

... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their invasion of privacy statute.

Lenny_da_Hog:Being behind an open window with open windows across the street shouldn't give any reasonable person a sense of seclusion. If I can see you, you can see me.

But, that case earlier notes that the people in their backyard were filmed from the neighbors house. Clearly they could see the neighbor's window from their backyard, but the court still found that a reasonable person would consider it secluded.

As said in TFA: "I think there's an understanding that when you live here with glass windows, there will be straying eyes but it feels different with someone who has a camera," Sylvester said.

See? No sense of seclusion. She's creeped out that someone took pictures, but she didn't expect seclusion.

That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.

fluffy2097:Theaetetus: Using a telephoto lens specifically to look into someone's home is different from photographing the face of the building. Specifically, under New York privacy law, there's an "incidental use" doctrine that applies.

Yet there his work is, in a gallery, with all sorts of pissed off dumb people yelling at him, and he's not in jail.

Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."

Lenny_da_Hog:Theaetetus: Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however. Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

The privacy fence wasn't high enough to block the neighbor's windows - the point was that a reasonable person would feel it was secluded, even if it was not absolutely photon-tight.

And again, literature, films, TV shows, and cartoons all depict people being seen in high-rise windows. When I look out of a high-rise, I can see through open windows in the high-rise across the street. I have no reasonable expectation of seclusion when I leave my curtains open.

Using a telephoto lens specifically to look into someone's home is different from photographing the face of the building. Specifically, under New York privacy law, there's an "incidental use" doctrine that applies.

fluffy2097:Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however. Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

Shhh. You'll make him cry by using his own facts against him with the use of common sense.

I've already proven your earlier blanket statement wrong. Most people would realize that they have an opportunity to learn something and might start reading some of the posts or linked sites, rather than blathering on. But you're special that way.

soosh:Theaetetus: Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar.

Different states have different laws regarding privacy.

Holy fark, seriously? You're trying to tell me that different states - such as New York and Illinois - may have different laws?! And that when I mention one, I should include an explicit caveat indicating that I'm talking about one state, like Illinois, rather than another state, like New York?!!You could knock me over with a feather right now, I'm so goddamn stunned.

Rotter:fluffy2097: You have no expectation of privacy if you don't bother to close your blinds.

But have a heart. It sounds like this idiot was spending all day, every day, looking for something, anything interesting. When you drop something and it rolls under the couch and you're about to drop to your hands and knees to go get it, are you expected to think "Oh, wait...I was enjoying the late-afternoon sun here in the living room and it's possible that my fully-clothed behind will be facing the window. What if some perv with a 1000mm lens is peeping at this window at this exact moment?"

If I saw my ass hanging in an art gallery, or better yet, a shot of my junk. I think I'd pull something laughing.

It's not like anyone knows it's me but me. They just know my junk, because my wiener is so awesome it now hangs in an art gallery.

Somaticasual:wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent. I bet they could successfully sue him over that.

It does raise one question - how do they get around the requirement for a model release? every stock photo featuring a person basically needs a model release, so why are jackass paparazzi exempted from that when they're selling the photos for ostensibly public use (for media outlets)? Is it some absurd free speech exemption?

Some of it has to do with private vs. public figures. Michael Jordan isn't going to get away suing people for taking a photo of him walking on the street.

Also, there's a difference between selling a photo of a any person for art, vs. using the photo for a commercial venture. The latter, the person could claim you're using the photo to say said person endorses the product.

Finally, even if its not illegal or would be thrown out in court... a simple model release covers your butt completely, so you never have to worry about a fight- even if you'd win the fight in the end.

mayIFark:fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.

Curtains exist for a reason. As long as something can be seen from public property it is legal.Moral? Slimy.But legal? Yes,

fluffy2097:It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.

My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent. I bet they could successfully sue him over that.

First, I think what the guy did was not cool and not a little creepy. Second, it was not, however, illegal. Third, curtains, how do they work? Fourth, damn I gotta start taking these kind of pictures so I can get paid.